In Paralegals v. Lawyers, Recuse the Lawyers?

THE president of First Security Legal Clinic in Hartford, Roney L. Harris, makes a living explaining the intricacies of the state's courtrooms to people who cannot afford to hire a lawyer or don't want to.

Now Mr. Harris is being hauled to court himself, on charges that he is practicing law and should not be because he is not a lawyer. And across the state, his case is being scrutinized by the paralegal companies, most of them started just in the last few years, that provide people a less costly alternative for guidance in divorce, bankruptcy, probate, name changes and other judicial proceedings.

We don't offer legal advice, and we don't represent anyone in court," Mr. Harris maintains. "Our clients know what they want when they come to see us. All we do is provide them with the proper forms and show them how to fill them out."

Motions and a Decision

But the Statewide Grievance Committee, a group created by the General Assembly in 1985, contends in a case pending in Hartford Superior Court that he has gone beyond that and has asked the court to order Mr. Harris to stop what he is doing. Motions on the case are being heard this month.

"Of course we're concerned about his case," said Roy M. Duff, vice president of We the People, a paralegal company with offices in Waterbury and East Hartford. "If he's found guilty, it could have some serious consequences for all of us."

Cathy A. Dowd, the assistant bar counsel to the Grievance Committee who handles all "unauthorized practice of law" cases, would not comment on how many, if any, similar cases are under review. All cases are handled in a confidential manner unless they are referred to court, she said, and Mr. Harris's case is the only one on file currently.

But owners of paralegal companies around the state say it is clear they have come under increased scrutiny.

"In Connecticut, anyone who's advertised and tried to make themselves visible has been contacted by the Grievance Committee, which is a very intimidating process," Mr. Duff said. "Connecticut seems to be going after unauthorized practice of law cases much more aggressively than most areas of the country."

Mr. Duff said his own company has helped prepare 448 uncontested divorces and 209 personal bankruptcies in the last two years.

"No one has ever come back and said there was a problem with the paperwork," Mr. Duff said. "There's never been a single complaint filed with the Chamber of Commerce or the state's Department of Consumer Protection or the Better Business Bureau. The only complaints I'm aware of are the ones from the Statewide Grievance Committee."

In California, Legal Practitioners

Across the country, change is coming to the legal profession: California is rewriting its laws to allow non-lawyers to register as legal practitioners; Arizona recently removed the "unauthorized practice of law" statute from its books, and many states have adopted a probate court standard that allows people to do more work for themselves.

"There's an important evolution happening in the law in America," said Gerard Patton, who opened a Doc-u-Pro office in Milford in 1992. "We're the only nation in the world that's given lawyers a monopoly on dispensing the law, but that's changing."

The communications director for the Connecticut Bar Association, Timothy Hazen, said the reason the bar takes the unauthorized practice of law so seriously is because it does not want people being hurt from bad legal advice. Critics charge, however, that it is simply a matter of lawyers trying to protect their priviliged incomes.

The Committee's Makeup

Meanwhile, the paralegals complain about the Grievance Committee's makeup. Under state statute, just 4 of its 15 members are nonlawyers. Members are selected by judges of the Superior Court, who are lawyers, and the chairman and vice chairman are selected by the judges as well. The panel makes the initial review of any case alleging the unauthorized practice of law.

The law on unauthorized practice of law "by persons not attorneys," basically states that people who have not been admitted as a lawyer by the bar association shall not appear in court on behalf of someone else, or offer someone advice as a lawyer. Under it, civil penalties of $250 and a two-month prison sentence may be levied, or a judge may find a person in contempt of court and impose additional penalties. But the law is vague on just what constitutes the practice of law.

Mr. Harris acknowledges he has been defiant of the Grievance Committee, often terming it a "kangaroo court." He refused to be sworn in for a committee hearing, and has filed a countersuit claiming that the committee, with its lawyer majority, has violated the antitrust provisions of the Sherman Act in attempting to restrain his trade. He has even challenged the constitutionality of the law and regulations that give power to the committee, and claims he cannot get a fair trial before a judge, as any judge will also be an attorney.

"If the judicial system is allowed to rule on it, it's just going to rubber stamp the actions of the Grievance Committee," Mr. Harris said.

Mr. Harris said if a person comes to him seeking an uncontested divorce, he supplies the forms, helps people understand them and explains the judicial process. For his service he collects $200, plus $150 court costs and $25 for a sheriff to serve the papers.

An error has occurred. Please try again later.

You are already subscribed to this email.

Lawyers would charge at least $800 to do the same thing, very possibly multiples of that, Mr. Harris said.

"I've had clients who've waited 8 or 10 years for a divorce. They have in effect put their lives on hold, because they can't afford to get into the legal system," Mr. Harris said.

'Almost Kafkaesque'

Webster E. Janssen of Litchfield, owner of Probate Services of America Inc., says he was hauled before the committee earlier this year. "It's almost Kafkaesque," Mr. Janssen said. "They won't tell you specifically what you've done wrong. I've got 13 services listed in my brochure, and when I ask which of them constitute the unauthorized practice of law, they tell me none of them do individually but they do as a package. If none of the components constitute the practice of law, how can they constitute the practice of law all together?"

Mr. Janssen also noted that one of the lawyers on his hearing panel does a considerable probate practice. "It seems to me that there's an inherent conflict of interest there," he said. And about one-third of Connecticut's probate judges are not lawyers, he pointed out, yet they are freely allowed to help people in probate court.

He said the entire process seemed designed to scare him out of business.

"Intimidation is part of their game. That's the way they work," Mr. Janssen said. "But until I hear from them, it's going to be business as usual."

Karen F. Zadora of Clinton, who has opened branches of her business, the Documentation Company, in six Connecticut towns as well as in Maine and Vermont, found herself in front of the committee for the second time this year. She was ordered to change the name of her company (it was formerly the Legal Documentation Company) and the wording in her business literature from "document preparation" to "clerical document preparation."

Ms. Zadora is among the many called before the committee who say they believe they have been denied due process. "If I was charged with something they wouldn't be able to bring me in two or three times," Ms. Zadora said. "This is pure intimidation."

Question of Fairness

"But I had to go along with it, or lose my business," Ms. Zadora said. "I was very naive, thinking I was going to go in there and everything was going to be handled fairly and professionally. It wasn't. I would have preferred to go up before a jury of my peers."

Referring to the fact that lawyers make up the great majority of the Grievance Committee, she said: "I know of no other business or organization that has the power to regulate its competition. Why even go through the process? You know who's going to overpower who. This is a monopoly."

Mr. Patton of Milford served in the House of Representatives from 1978 to 1988, spending six of those years on the Judiciary Committee, where he said he saw the power of the legal profession in its domination of the committee in blocking attempts to loosen restrictions on paralegals.

His own brush with the Grievance Committee dates to 1992, when he was called into a hearing and told the committee would refer his case to court. The case is still pending.

"If you want to change your name, all you do is file a piece of paper and there's no fighting and no arguing, and no reason to hire an attorney," Mr. Patton said.

Mr. Janssen said he believes one reason the Grievance Committee is becoming more aggressive about paralegals is because there is so much in the way of self-help books, computer software and other products designed to help people avoid hiring lawyers. In addition, he said, paralegals make up the fastest growing profession in the country.

"There's too many attorneys out there," Mr. Janssen said. "The United States has 70 percent of the world's lawyers. There's one for every 350 people here, compared to one for every 50,000 people in Japan."

Mr. Janssen noted that in his own hometown, there are 18 pages of lawyers listed in the Yellow Pages. The only other profession that comes close is doctors, with 15 pages.

And all those lawyers, he said, are worried about the trend to take the law away from the lawyers.

"So when anybody invades their lucrative turf, they move very quickly to protect themselves," Mr. Janssen said. "They don't want to open the door even a crack."

We are continually improving the quality of our text archives. Please send feedback, error reports,
and suggestions to archive_feedback@nytimes.com.

A version of this article appears in print on July 31, 1994, on Page CN13 of the National edition with the headline: In Paralegals v. Lawyers, Recuse the Lawyers?. Order Reprints|Today's Paper|Subscribe